If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And people wonder why we have binary blobs. No sane person would contribute code if doing so implies surrendering any rights that they can reasonably expect as a copyright owner. Incidents like this are a great way to drive companies either away from Linux or toward creating binary blobs.

Comment

And people wonder why we have binary blobs. No sane person would contribute code if doing so implies surrendering any rights that they can reasonably expect as a copyright owner. Incidents like this are a great way to drive companies either away from Linux or toward creating binary blobs.

Not really relevant. The question isn't over what rights they have over their own code - there's no question that they can release a proprietary version of the bits they actually hold copyright over. It's purely a question of whether their code is isolated enough that they're not using code that they *don't* own.

Comment

And people wonder why we have binary blobs. No sane person would contribute code if doing so implies surrendering any rights that they can reasonably expect as a copyright owner. Incidents like this are a great way to drive companies either away from Linux or toward creating binary blobs.

Well if they have written the code from which they created their proprietary version all by themselves then they certainly have the rights to provide that proprietary version and continue to develop it as such, they can also re-licence it under other terms, it's all within their rights as in this case the code are theirs alone.

However, if they are shipping the proprietary version as part of a Linux kernel to third-parties then they are in breach of GPL as their code is then a derivative work, this is not some new concept and it's very well understood.

Looking past the stupidity (imo) of trying to make a business out of shipping proprietary components for inclusion into the GPL licenced Linux kernel, it seems that they didn't even write all the code themselves to begin with, which would make this 'debate' entirely pointless.

Your scaremongering of companies leaving Linux or turning to binary blobs betrays your dislike of the GPL as it's entirely illogical, if it wasn't for GPL preventing their inclusion into the kernel we'd have tons more binary blobs and far fewer open source drivers.

Comment

gpl is not definitive to the copyright owner. in the meanwhile, the owner has the right to distribute his code under another license. Nokia did dat with Qt: got it for free under gpl but everything you distribute must stay open source or pay a fee to get the code under a commercial license.

Comment

gpl is not definitive to the copyright owner. in the meanwhile, the owner has the right to distribute his code under another license.

That's true - but it's only true of the code the copyright owner actually owns. If they can keep their code separate enough that it doesn't depend on anyone else's code, that's fine.

But if they can't, it's considered a derivative work, and they can't do so without the permission of any other relevant copyright holders. And reading those LKML posts, it sounds like people are generally skeptical, believing that such a separation is unlikely to be possible.